Taking Sides. Ethics, Politics And Fieldwork In .
Taking Sides. Ethics, Politics and Fieldwork in Anthropology – Editedby Heidi Armbruster and Anna Laerke Participatory Research inConservation and Rural Livelihoods. Doing Science Together – Editedby Louise FortmannMcAreavey, R. (2010). Taking Sides. Ethics, Politics and Fieldwork in Anthropology – Edited by Heidi Armbrusterand Anna Laerke Participatory Research in Conservation and Rural Livelihoods. Doing Science Together –Edited by Louise Fortmann. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(4), 596-601. lished in:Journal of Agrarian ChangeDocument Version:Peer reviewed versionQueen's University Belfast - Research Portal:Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research PortalPublisher rights 2010 Blackwell Publishing LtdThis is the peer reviewed version of the following article: McAREAVEY, R. (2010), Taking Sides. Ethics, Politics and Fieldwork inAnthropology – Edited by Heidi Armbruster and Anna Laerke Participatory Research in Conservation and Rural Livelihoods. Doing ScienceTogether – Edited by Louise Fortmann. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10: 596–601, which has been published in final form 1-0366.2010.00270.x/abstract. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes inaccordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or othercopyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associatedwith these rights.Take down policyThe Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made toensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in theResearch Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.Download date:18. Mar. 2021
RUTH MCAREAVEYTaking Sides. Ethics, Politics and Fieldwork in Anthropology, by Heidi Armbruster and Anna Laerke(eds.). New York and Oxford: Berghahn. Pp. Vi 261, 55 (hb); 17.50 (pb) ISBN 978-1-84545-4210 and 978-1-84545-701-3In Taking Sides Heidi Armbruster and Anna Laerke present nine firsthand accounts of conductinganthropology in various geographical locations and in different socio-political contexts including Syria,England, Bangladesh, Turkey and Austria. The importance of taking sides is the key premise of thebook, it reveals how even if the researcher ‘does nothing’ a choice has been made. As becomes clearthroughout the volume, this is not unproblematic; it can cause tension and ethical dilemmas as it tendsto raise difficult choices for the researcher. Consequently the book is premised on the impossibility ofthe anthropologist ever remaining impartial and so the politics and ethics of conducting participantresearch are examined throughout the volume. While the authenticity of this particular stance onimpartiality may be debated at length, it nonetheless provides a platform for analysis. Rather thanconsidering the way in which those in the field may be represented by others speaking on their behalf,the starting point here is to speak with them. Through critical analysis the researchers reveal how theyare embedded in the field and are politically engaged; they are not set apart from the research, insteadthey inhabit it and they help to shape it. Researchers develop relations with individuals; even so theiractivities are bounded by wider social structures.This eclectic compilation presents accounts from both seasoned and less-experienced researchers. Itexpertly tackles tricky matters such as the romanticisation of the grassroots or the suffering of theelite; it brings to centre stage the importance of place or ‘place making’ (p.177), social relations andexperiences; it reveals the complexity of the relationship that exists between the research field andacademic institutions; and it demonstrates the temporal nature of ethnography. With this myriad ofthemes one might imagine that the book would struggle to achieve continuity. This is not the case.The contributors analyse the process of ‘doing’ anthropology and the subsequent ethical dilemmas.Accordingly the following issues underpin the book: connections to institutional structures; powerrelations that exist between people; and researcher positionality.Ethics in research is ever more widespread and to some degree this mirrors the increasing prevalenceof an auditing approach to the management of universities. These administrative driven associatedethical frameworks are thus broadly concerned with principles, values and rules. Some would arguethat professional autonomy is being stifled by these bureaucratic regulations. This book is not aboutsuch prescriptive, bureaucratic ethics 1. Ethics as a dynamic and multi-dimensional process that issteeped in power relations is the subject of the book. Viewing ethics from this perspective recogniseshow local and particular features of each situation affect the way in which events are interpreted sothat everyday encounters provide context (Ambruster p.16). At the same time it demonstrates theinadequacy of a pre-determined, managerial approach to research ethics. The collection is concernedwith the ethical judgements that the researcher makes in the course of conducting research. Theseethics cannot always be pre-empted; they often require instantaneous decisions where the researchermust ‘think on her feet’ and indeed ethics are sometimes only apparent during the write-up phase.Ethics relate to personal position, perception and knowledge of others, and of their world.The book sets out to reveal how the research field is inextricably linked to power. It does thiseffectively and expressively. Many of the authors grapple with highly sensitive and often personal1although it is recognised elsewhere that this framework affects the ability of the researcher to conduct thepoliticised, engaged research promoted within Taking Sides (see for instance Hennings 2006; Israel and Hay2006), the authors acknowledge a role for an ethical review process1
issues using examples located in normal and in extraordinary situations. In the context of primaryschool education in an English village, Laerke was compelled to take sides in the continuous struggleover whose version of the truth was more powerful. Using instances from everyday life, such as theploy to mask the reality of administering children’s vaccinations or the performances connected withthe church harvest festival, she vividly illustrates the way in which knowledge is used to exert power.On these occasions the adults withheld information in the belief that they understood best what wasin the interests of the children. In a less mundane scenario, Schaumberg’s account of an anti-capitalistmovement in Argentina unmistakably shows how the option of doing nothing does not exist.Schaumberg considered her choices at a public meeting: to speak up or to remain silent. The lattercourse of action would have aligned her with the alleged injustices of the municipality. Schaumbergreveals the power of speaking up in allowing analytical progress as it engaged with collective debatewhile also informing and shaping the ongoing study of events in the field. But these are not easychoices for the researcher and there are certain risks, for Schaumberg this was the danger of facingcriminal charges. Other risks associated with taking sides are illuminated within the book, such as thefear of estranging friends (Geros p.111); or of providing material for misuse by partisan groups(Mookherjee p.83); or of jeopardising marital relations (Atay p.61).The role and limitations of predominant approaches to anthropology that have been evident in recentdecades are highlighted within the collection, including post-colonialism, feminism andpostmodernism. It is argued that established notions of power must be challenged in today’sglobalised, capitalised world where traditional social boundaries, identities and place are morevariable. Accordingly the contributors identify the ubiquitous nature of power and power relations inthe manner described by Foucault. This is illustrated by Lindisfarne as she makes connections betweenAmerican imperialism, the Afghan war and gender (and gender inequalities). Through her instructiveanalysis, Lindisfarne provides a rationale for anthropologists to avoid viewing society solely ‘frombelow’ (p.23) and in doing so to reminds them to look up and consider macro issues such as globalelites and ensuing social relations. Her analysis has resonance with Strasser’s depiction of politicalnetworks, identity and social integration in Austria and also with the connection made by Nealebetween anthropology and wider social issues. He eloquently conveys how by understanding theplight of those in the field, in this case the Afganis, the researcher is compelled to take account ofstructures and the degree to which individuals have agency. Analysis of the political economy ratherthan self-absorption with the ‘other’ (p.223) is vital. In other words these researchers are concernedthat anthropological research is about more than ‘naval gazing’, they advocate the examination ofstructural issues and so identify the importance of politics to this type of study. In so doing they alsoimply that while the researcher assumes a particular (subjective) position, other factors shape theresearch field. By necessity then, this research must transcend traditional disciplinary divides; a pathriddled with complications.The notion of subjectivity pervades the volume and is in sharp contrast to notions of the researcheras ‘cipher’ and acting free of vested interests (Yearley 2005). Many of the contributors examine theresearcher’s position, the constant negotiation between observation and participation the movementbetween outsider-insider positions and the extent to which objectivity can really exist. For me thisongoing analysis and debate made the collection worthwhile and triggered new thoughts, providingfresh perspective and creating an enhanced backdrop for conducting participant observation. Whilethe reader may be skeptical that objectivity cannot be achieved, even to a degree, there is no doubtthat the arguments promoted will spark further deliberations reminiscent of the Science Wars 2 (Sokal1996).2This debate was preoccupied with the perils of postmodernism; with the extent of social influences onscience; and on the degree to which objectivity could ever really be achieved.2
It would be impossible to review this robust collection of essays without singling out Chapter Nine forspecific remarks. Evidently Neale is a well accomplished writer and his flair is apparent. It is an inspiringcontribution for its value both as a written piece and for its content. He provides an illuminatingaccount of the elitist nature of academia and indeed of wider society; he advances the notion of thepower of the ruling elite. It is far removed from the stuffy, dry, prose often associated with academicwriting. For example in discussing discrimination and public prejudices in relation to the choices madeby recruitment panels in universities he suggests that ‘One possible explanation is that invisible evilfairies fly into the ears of the interviewing panel and crawl up into their brains’ (p.239). Meanwhilethe content is critical. Neale notes the divide that is required to write for academic and activistaudiences. Crucially he argues that challenging the majority can free one up from being inside themainstream and may also better explain people’s experience. This ideology frames much of the restof the contribution with the themes of understanding and questioning assumptions; being politicallyengaged; and having an impact in the public domain being picked up elsewhere in the book.Notwithstanding the extent of the reader’s sympathy with the arguments advanced therein, TakingSides is an impressive collection of accounts. It offers insights into methodology, but it is not amethodological text. The collection presents an array of anthropological case studies that examinesocial relations from below while also focusing on broader socio-political frameworks. It will bevaluable to the novice researcher looking for guidance on how to do research. However, given thethought-provoking content, its real appeal will lie in the debate that is sure to follow among allcategories of researchers. Deliberations on inter-disciplinary approaches; subjectivity and objectivity;power relations; positionality; and structure and agency are sure to follow.Participatory Research in Conservation and Rural Livelihoods. Doing Science Together, by LouiseFortman (ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. Xxx 284. 75 (hb); 29.99 (pb) ISBN 978-1-4051-7679-8and 978-1-4051-8732-9Fortmann brings together researchers from policy, academia and the community in search of sciencethat is empowered, local and lay. To this end the volume aims to bring together knowledge that isproduced by less powerful individuals and groups with that of the more influential in society. Thecontributors represent the range of different interests that one might expect to find in socialecological research management. Alongside academics and scientists are farmers, members of localproducers’ associations and community members and it is hardly surprising that the meaning given tocollaborative research varies across these different interest groups, often giving rise to trickyoutcomes. Geography too is diverse, with case studies from Central and North America, WesternEurope, Asia and Africa.In a similar vein to Taking Sides, this book engages with the researched. Sharing the values expoundedin Armbruster and Laerke, Fortmann is unequivocal that all people create knowledge. This is a centralethos of the book; it recognises the different roles and contributions that different people can bringto the research process. In a somewhat innovative way it does this by encouraging them to literallyspeak for themselves. The bulk of the chapters are organised in pairs: the first in the pair represents aconventional account that is written by a professional researcher, while the second is an account ofthe same project from one or more civil scientists. By considering the perspective of professional andof lay researchers, the book explores ways in which knowledge is situated. It shows how it isdetermined by common standards and patterns of behaviour, common approaches and assumptionsall of which differ across and between interest groups. Hence issues of gender, power and equalitypervade the analysis.The contributors explore the challenges associated with the way in which research institutionsproduce knowledge, the type of practices that they endorse and the way in which certain individualsand knowledge are privileged over others. Rather than set up the normal binary of good and bad3
science, a framework is established that considers science in two ways: as process and as goals. Withthis approach science is understood as a way of working and as a means of unraveling the elusivenessof the world. In and of itself this approach is not new; the way in which it is employed is innovative asit serves to circumvent the rehearsal of the usual arguments around epistemology. Perhaps moreimportantly it avoids the dismissal of knowledge because of its source and it gives credibility to thosewho are often silenced within the research process. Further, it overcomes limitations that emergebecause of the way in which many theories have a male bias as they are based on male expectationsof the world (p.4). Significantly, just as the book does not reject the value of conventional science, itdoes not consider that lay science ought to become a new source of knowledge or even a handmaidento conventional science. Instead it promotes a complex interplay between the two.Despite carefully establishing an alternative way of considering research and indeed science,traditional concerns typically targeted towards interdisciplinary approaches are examined throughoutthe book. Fundamentally this relates to the dilemmas of producing research that is both ‘sociallyrobust and epistemologically eclectic’ (Nowotny et al. 2001:198). A typical such quandary that isportrayed relates to the researchers’ physical existence and how they present themselves to acommunity in order to achieve legitimacy and avoid association with pre-established hierarchies orovercome perceptions of remoteness (see for instance Ch. 6, 8; 10 & 11). One is mindful of Goffman’s(1959) attention to the presentation of self. Self-presentation is equally important for the civilscientists where the social risks of participating were revealed as these individuals were oftenperceived as ‘crazy’ people (p.61) and so faced a degree of disconnection with their community. Doubtwas shown to exist among both academics and lay researchers, some of whom questioned thecredibility of collaborative research, perceiving it to be ‘fuzzy’ (p.152).Gaps remain in the detail of how to conduct collaborative research. Many of the contributors makethe case for giving a voice to an invisible, and sometimes, mobile workforce. Despite thisempowerment, there is evidence of disenfranchisement elsewhere. The reader is given the impressionthat while grand achievements are made through active involvement, the ramifications are not alwaysthoroughly considered. For instance while the key objective of those employed locally was to generateincome, it was sometimes the case that participating in the research compromised that income (Ch.2,7, 10). In other cases expectations were unmet such as the provision of childcare payments (Ch. 7) orthe lack of concrete results (Ch.11). Another complaint was that the research was not conducted at atime that was absolutely best for the civil scientists (Ch.7). Tensions between professional and layresearchers were not always fully explained and I believe such an analysis would have been a valuableaddition to the volume. The reality of conducting participatory research is that personalities matter,individuals do clash, compromise is not always possible and relationships can break down. But morethan this the politics of choice are complicated; individuals are not free agents, they are constrainedby other factors that lie outside of their sphere of influence; they exist within a complexity of powerrelations. Choosing to participate in this type of research has a cost and it is an oversight that theanalysis within this volume does not always fully explicate that cost.The book advances the argument that taking sides is an inevitable part of the process – even if that isto ‘do nothing’. However there is no consensus on the position that the researcher assumes.Sometimes the assumption is made that researchers can assume a wholly neutral position (p. 174),while other contributors depict the politicized arena of the field (Chapters 10 and 11). In the lattercase study the power of the researchers and of the community was limited due to district governmentofficials’ lack of capacity to formally recognize physical community boundaries. This was furthercomplicated by uncertainty around the relationship between the research organization and thedistrict government and the subsequent potential for the research findings to influence governmentpolicy. The mapping exercise that was undertaken here was naïve – it did not perceive that mapswould be used as a negotiation tool by the communities with logging companies for timber permits4
and harvesting. In the end the researchers recognized these limitations and identified the need to berealistic and operate within existing power relations. Meanwhile many in the community were unclearabout their own
Taking Sides. Heidi Armbruster and Anna Laerke present . nine firsthand accounts of conducting anthropology in various geographical locations and in different socio -political contexts including Syria, England, Bangladesh, Turkey and Austria. he importance of taking sidesT is the key premise of the
Triangle ABC has 3 sides: AB, AC, and BC Name triangles by the number of equal sides. A triangle has 3 sides. A pentagon has 5 sides. A hexagon has 6 sides. An octagon has 8 sides. An equilateral triangle has all sides equal. An isosceles triangle has 2 sides equal. A scalene triangle has no sides equal. AB BC AC DE DF A B C M QP N A C B .
various facets of politics — the Indian Constitution, politics in India, and political theory. Contemporary World Politics enlar ges the scope of politics to the world stage. The new Political Science syllabus has finally given space to world politics. This is a vital development. As India becomes more prominent in international politics and as
Sampling for the Ethics in Social Research study The Ethics in Social Research fieldwork 1.3 Structure of the report 2. TALKING ABOUT ETHICS 14 2.1 The approach taken in the study 2.2 Participants' early thoughts about ethics 2.2.1 Initial definitions of ethics 2.2.2 Ethics as applied to research 2.3 Mapping ethics through experiences of .
using Taking Sides in the classroom. A general guidebook, Using Taking Sides in the Classroom, which discusses methods and techniques for integrating the pro-con approach into any classroom setting, is also available. An online version of Using Taking Sides in the Classroom and a correspondence service for Taking Sides adopt-
Local Politics: Institutions and Reform, 4th ed (2014). I have taught graduate seminars on State Politics, American Political Parties, The Politics of Direct Democracy, The Politics of Campaign Finance, and The Politics of Reform, and I also regularly teach a large undergraduate survey course, State and Local Politics.
WORLD POLITICS . Palgrave Macmillan, have been devoted to the study of religion in com parative and international politics. 1 . The renaissance in this subfield has led to important advances in our understanding of religion in politics, although notable lacunae remain. In . comparative politics, the subfield's turn from purely descriptive work
Code of Ethics The Code of Ethics defines the standards and the procedures by which the Ethics Committee operates.! More broadly, the Code of Ethics is designed to give AAPM Members an ethical compass to guide the conduct of their professional affairs.! TG-109! Code of Ethics The Code of Ethics in its current form was approved in
"usiness ethics" versus "ethics": a false dichotomy "usiness decisions versus ethics" Business ethics frequently frames things out, including ethics Framing everything in terms of the "bottom line" Safety, quality, honesty are outside consideration. There is no time for ethics.
